More FAs likely to go as a result of Transport Canada ruling
Oct 16, 2003, 2:34 am
#1
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
More FAs likely to go as a result of Transport Canada ruling
This just seems to play into AC's plans.
The 40 to 1 ratio is to be increased to 50 to 1, meaning AC can do with less FAs. While this will do little for service on board, I'm not convinced about the likely union counterpoint that FAs provide security in the cabin.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...tory/Business/
The 40 to 1 ratio is to be increased to 50 to 1, meaning AC can do with less FAs. While this will do little for service on board, I'm not convinced about the likely union counterpoint that FAs provide security in the cabin.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...tory/Business/
Oct 16, 2003, 7:57 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Programs: AC 75K, Hertz President’s Circle, Accor Gold, Hilton Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 10,071
I can't see how, for example, having a FULL 737-200 staffed with 2 FAs is going to result in any level of service whatsoever. I also think that it could potentially be dangerous.
Oct 16, 2003, 12:46 pm
#3
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Programs: BA GGL, FPC Plat, HH Diamond, IHG Amb
Posts: 3,372
Actually, the proposed ratio is 1 FA per 50 seats or per 40 passengers.
As it stands, if you have an a/c with 90 seats, you must have 3 FA's, even if you have only 30 passengers. By increasing the number to 50, you can get away with 2, unless the load is over 80, in which case you still need 3.
This is a scheduling nightmare that could wind up offsetting any cost savings.
As it stands, if you have an a/c with 90 seats, you must have 3 FA's, even if you have only 30 passengers. By increasing the number to 50, you can get away with 2, unless the load is over 80, in which case you still need 3.
This is a scheduling nightmare that could wind up offsetting any cost savings.
Oct 16, 2003, 1:12 pm
#5
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,018
There has been a 1/50 exemption to the 1/40 rule on the DH3 for almost 10 years and it's been on the CRJ since they were introduced to the fleet.
Will this make much differance on long haul fleets? Probably not. The J cabin has a higher ratio of cabin staff which will help offset the 1/50.
A 120 seat B737 will still have 3 f/a regarless of which rule is being used.
On occasion, usually during holidays, flights have been known to depart payload restricted because of a lack of crew.
Will this make much differance on long haul fleets? Probably not. The J cabin has a higher ratio of cabin staff which will help offset the 1/50.
A 120 seat B737 will still have 3 f/a regarless of which rule is being used.
On occasion, usually during holidays, flights have been known to depart payload restricted because of a lack of crew.
Oct 16, 2003, 2:45 pm
#7
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,466
While not a terrible shock, C.U.P.E. says the Transport Canada changes will put air safety at risk:
http://www.newswire.ca/releases/Octo.../16/c1624.html
http://www.newswire.ca/releases/Octo.../16/c1624.html
Oct 16, 2003, 3:19 pm
#8
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,657
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AC*SE:
Actually, the proposed ratio is 1 FA per 50 seats or per 40 passengers.
As it stands, if you have an a/c with 90 seats, you must have 3 FA's, even if you have only 30 passengers. By increasing the number to 50, you can get away with 2, unless the load is over 80, in which case you still need 3.
This is a scheduling nightmare that could wind up offsetting any cost savings.</font>
Actually, the proposed ratio is 1 FA per 50 seats or per 40 passengers.
As it stands, if you have an a/c with 90 seats, you must have 3 FA's, even if you have only 30 passengers. By increasing the number to 50, you can get away with 2, unless the load is over 80, in which case you still need 3.
This is a scheduling nightmare that could wind up offsetting any cost savings.</font>
Oct 17, 2003, 12:13 pm
#10
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 12
I just retired as a F/A, so read this knowing I am writing from that angle.
Air Canada, and other airlines, lobbied for years, and did get an exemption for the CRJ as it holds more then 40, but requires only one F/A. The only time 2 F/As are boarded is: if there is a meal and the load requires it or if the Purser in Unilingual, a bilingual must also be boarded.
Air Canada also has crew /service requirements which the Crew Schedulers are responsible to meet. They are normally above the 1 in 40 rule, with the exception of the CRJ… and A319...which is why the service is lacking comparatively on short flights. MOT also has regulations which require door exits to be manned 2 across per flight attendant, which is why a 767 can have a minimum of 3, but an A321 must have 5.
A 1 in 50 ratio (this is per passenger, never by seat as was erroneously written in the Globe) will allow the airline to choose saving money over safety and in fact service, as it did with the A319. Air Canada has had the prestige of being in the top 10 airlines of the world for every aspect of safety. With the diminishing numbers of maintenance personal and Flight Attendant ratio, it will not be able to maintain that standard.
If anyone doubts that it would not be less safe, during my last week of work, God wanted me to be happy with my decision to retire and gave me a year's worth of challenges. A woman who seemed fine on the ground, had an anxiety attack and yelled that we were all going to die and tried to get up to "leave". I had to sit with her and literally calm, and sometimes restrain her, the entire flight as it was turbulent through most of the flight. The crew was exhausted from having to fill my Purser duties and my Flight Attendant duties, keep in contact with medlink and still serve all the passengers and fulfill safety duties as well.
Now imagine that I was alone as Purser on a CRJ. I would not only have done zippo service, but now what if a fire breaks out in the galley? What if we have an emergency? What if someone else gets ill or has a heart attack? What if there is also an unruly passenger or another frightened flyer? We are required to ask for help from passengers, but this is no easy task. In the incident above, I wanted to get up and get back to work, but the Doctor on board refused to sit with her until landing. What if the single Flight attendant is ill? Then what?
I was amazed that Transport Canada allowed the airlines to bully for the CRJ and smaller aircraft exemptions, but now I am appalled that a 1 in 50 rule will be the allowed across the board. (By the way, Air Canada will keep the high ratio for service wherever it sees fit for competitive reasons, but it will reduce its smaller aircraft minimums wherever it can...for example the new 75 seater...which is what the lobby has obviously been about) A lot of you will not see changess flying overseas, (perhaps) but domestic will no doubt be affected….especially business class, where now the Purser works both cabins. No doubt the Purser will work both cabins, but no one else will be there on a permanent basis.
Less Flight Attendants mean less safety. I hope Air Canada will opt to maintain the 1 in 40 passenger ratio, but I won’t hold my breath. Thanks for your time.
Air Canada, and other airlines, lobbied for years, and did get an exemption for the CRJ as it holds more then 40, but requires only one F/A. The only time 2 F/As are boarded is: if there is a meal and the load requires it or if the Purser in Unilingual, a bilingual must also be boarded.
Air Canada also has crew /service requirements which the Crew Schedulers are responsible to meet. They are normally above the 1 in 40 rule, with the exception of the CRJ… and A319...which is why the service is lacking comparatively on short flights. MOT also has regulations which require door exits to be manned 2 across per flight attendant, which is why a 767 can have a minimum of 3, but an A321 must have 5.
A 1 in 50 ratio (this is per passenger, never by seat as was erroneously written in the Globe) will allow the airline to choose saving money over safety and in fact service, as it did with the A319. Air Canada has had the prestige of being in the top 10 airlines of the world for every aspect of safety. With the diminishing numbers of maintenance personal and Flight Attendant ratio, it will not be able to maintain that standard.
If anyone doubts that it would not be less safe, during my last week of work, God wanted me to be happy with my decision to retire and gave me a year's worth of challenges. A woman who seemed fine on the ground, had an anxiety attack and yelled that we were all going to die and tried to get up to "leave". I had to sit with her and literally calm, and sometimes restrain her, the entire flight as it was turbulent through most of the flight. The crew was exhausted from having to fill my Purser duties and my Flight Attendant duties, keep in contact with medlink and still serve all the passengers and fulfill safety duties as well.
Now imagine that I was alone as Purser on a CRJ. I would not only have done zippo service, but now what if a fire breaks out in the galley? What if we have an emergency? What if someone else gets ill or has a heart attack? What if there is also an unruly passenger or another frightened flyer? We are required to ask for help from passengers, but this is no easy task. In the incident above, I wanted to get up and get back to work, but the Doctor on board refused to sit with her until landing. What if the single Flight attendant is ill? Then what?
I was amazed that Transport Canada allowed the airlines to bully for the CRJ and smaller aircraft exemptions, but now I am appalled that a 1 in 50 rule will be the allowed across the board. (By the way, Air Canada will keep the high ratio for service wherever it sees fit for competitive reasons, but it will reduce its smaller aircraft minimums wherever it can...for example the new 75 seater...which is what the lobby has obviously been about) A lot of you will not see changess flying overseas, (perhaps) but domestic will no doubt be affected….especially business class, where now the Purser works both cabins. No doubt the Purser will work both cabins, but no one else will be there on a permanent basis.
Less Flight Attendants mean less safety. I hope Air Canada will opt to maintain the 1 in 40 passenger ratio, but I won’t hold my breath. Thanks for your time.
Oct 17, 2003, 1:03 pm
#13
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 718
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by taupo:
Interesting handle, navelsyrupeater or maplesyrupeater?</font>
Interesting handle, navelsyrupeater or maplesyrupeater?</font>
As I explained to cattle when I met him on a flight a few weeks ago, it was supposed to be maplesyrupeater but I mistyped it and have now grown to love it. I used to post on FT about 3 years ago ( back in the Mexican hat dance days ) under a different handle but have since forgotten it and my password.
Cheers.
Nov 25, 2003, 9:45 am
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 12,072
On my flight Sunday am YVR/YYZ we left missing one FA who was a no-show.Flight a 767domestic ,all seats occupied.
The in charge noted to passengers that there was a staff person missing,and service could be a little slower(would do their best)
My question.How many FA's are req'd on a 767Domestic as a bare minimum?I found no difference in service(an op upgrade for me)
The in charge noted to passengers that there was a staff person missing,and service could be a little slower(would do their best)
My question.How many FA's are req'd on a 767Domestic as a bare minimum?I found no difference in service(an op upgrade for me)
Nov 27, 2003, 1:33 am
#15
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: YYZ, YYJ, ZRH
Programs: AC MM
Posts: 430
AdamAdam4:
I'm not entirely certain that fewer flight attendents will mean a lower level of safety.
As I see it, the primary safety responsibility of the flight attendent(s) is to ensure that cabin baggage is properly stowed, and passengers remain seated and belted in whenever the seat belt sign is on.
The secondary (not in importance, but in frequency of need for this action) safety responsibility of flight attendents is to operate the doors and assist in the sudden evacuation of the aircraft should this be required.
As long as there are sufficient FA's on board the aircraft to allocate one FA to each pair of doors (with the exception of the most forward door on aircraft with a door between the flight compartment and passenger seating area - that can be attended to by the FO), then I think the safety requirements can be fully satisfied.
I do agree that there will be a decline in the quality of cabin service (beverage, meal, amenity service) if the passenger to FA ration is increased, but the airlines worldwide seem to be trending towards providing less in flight service, to enable them to provide lower fares.
I'm not entirely certain that fewer flight attendents will mean a lower level of safety.
As I see it, the primary safety responsibility of the flight attendent(s) is to ensure that cabin baggage is properly stowed, and passengers remain seated and belted in whenever the seat belt sign is on.
The secondary (not in importance, but in frequency of need for this action) safety responsibility of flight attendents is to operate the doors and assist in the sudden evacuation of the aircraft should this be required.
As long as there are sufficient FA's on board the aircraft to allocate one FA to each pair of doors (with the exception of the most forward door on aircraft with a door between the flight compartment and passenger seating area - that can be attended to by the FO), then I think the safety requirements can be fully satisfied.
I do agree that there will be a decline in the quality of cabin service (beverage, meal, amenity service) if the passenger to FA ration is increased, but the airlines worldwide seem to be trending towards providing less in flight service, to enable them to provide lower fares.